But other content manufacturers weren’t. For instance, Demand Media, a content factory that churns out hundreds of web pages and videos daily, was hardly affected.

And then there is Cult of Mac, an Apple-focussed blog which took a beating—losing nearly all of its Google juice in the change, and causing traffic to the site to fall by a third to a half over the weekend. (Full disclosure: Cult of Mac’s editor Leander Kahney was Wired.com’s managing editor, until he left about two years ago to run Cult of Mac fulltime.)

That, Kahney told Wired.com, could mean the death knell for his site.

“We worked hard to be original and have good quality content,” Kahney said. “It seems very unfair because there’s a lot of shit sites that deserve to be downgraded.”

Kahney said he suspects that Cult of Mac may have been downgraded because there are lots of sites that scrape and republish his content, which he never bothered to try to put a stop to. Another possibility is that the site has recently been publishing “How Tos,” which he hoped would provide a steady stream of traffic to augment the fluctuations of traffic patterns to news sites.

“You’re not on the web if you’re not on Google,” Kahney said. “Google is the web—who uses anything else to find stuff?”

Kahney, the site’s only full-time employee, has six part timers and hoped by the end of the year to be on solid financial ground, and have enough clout to get higher paying ads.

In Sistrix’s computation of winners and losers, Cult of Mac lost 96 percent of its Google spots.

As for the winners, the loot seems to be distributed, with a wide swath of sites picking up about 15 percent higher rankings, including Time.com, Instructables, Sears, DailyMotion, LinkedIn, Facebook, MarthaStewart.com, the Library of Congress and Snopes (see the full list from Sistrix here.)

For its part, Google refuses to discuss specific sites or what signals it manipulated to make the change.

However, Google Fellow Amit Singhal did say that the company tested the results in a new way, in addition to its usual tests. Those tests include asking a set of non-Google employees to rank new results versus old ones, much like an eye doctor asks which is better.

“If you do over a large range of queries, you get a very good picture of whether the new results are better than the old,” Singhal said.

But after this change, the company asked additional questions about top sites to judge their quality, including “Would you feel comfortable giving this site your credit card number?” and “Would you feel comfortable taking medical advice for your child from this site?,” according to Singh.

“The outcome was widely positive,” Singhal said. (To be clear, these surveys are used to measure changes, not to create them.)

But what about a site like Cult of Mac and others that lost their rankings.

Singhal admits the change might not have been perfect, since “no algorithm is 100 percent accurate.”

“We deeply care about the people who are generating high quality content sites which are the key to a healthy web ecosystem,” Singhal said. “However, we don’t manually change anything along these lines.”

“Therefore any time a good site gets a lower ranking or falsely gets caught by our algorithm—and that does happen once in a while even though all of our testing shows this change was very accurate—we make a note of it and go back the next day to work harder to bring it closer to 100 percent.”

“That’s exactly what we are going to do and our engineers are working has we speak building a new layer on top of this algorithm to make it even more accurate than it is,” Singhal said.

That layer couldn’t come fast enough for Kahney, who now is outranked by sites that have reprinted his original content without permission. For now, he plans to send copyright notices to some of the sites, stop publishing full RSS feeds to make re-posters have to work harder and contact Google in hopes of restoring the site’s search traffic.

“I’m hoping it will resolve‚don’t know how. By magic I guess,” Kahney said. “Maybe the good fairy Matt Cutts [Google's head of webspam] will swoop down and grant my wishes?”